Commish Question regarding WW issue... (1 Viewer)

[unckeyherb]

12 team league, we do blind bidding against a cap for waivers.

Player A bid $50 on Peterson and won.

Player B bid $54, but RTS wouldn't process the move because he was going to drop his only kicker and it would have resulted in an 'illegal roster', which he obviously would have remedied between now and Sunday.

There is nothing in the league bylaws or on the website that references this issue-meaning he had no knowledge of the site not dropping his kicker, otherwise he would have dropped a WR5..

I found this blurb on the front page of the Bidding area: "If your roster is not full... no player will be dropped". Its kind of ambiguous because his roster IS full, although our Roster Composition on the Rules page requires a minimum of 1 kicker.

I am leaning towards using my common sense and not being a letter-of-the-law d-bag and awarding it to player b. However, I think that there is a reasonable argument that he should know the roster requirements and understand the drop rules..

Thoughts?

 

[Cyclones]

We use RTS as well and have had a couple of instances of things like this, but nothing as potentially league shifting as AP being involved. I think you have to leave it be though. The RTS waiver system is very user unfriendly and confusing, half the people in our league don't even bid on players because they can't figure out how to use it.

 

[Courtweeks87]

On mfl at least it would have notified him that it would make his lineup illegal. Either way he should know the rules of the league. How do you know he bid $54 for sure?

 

[Road Warriors]

One of the bigger pain points for commissioners, waiver systems.

In this case, I would let it stand. Although the rule is not explicitly stated for the situation ( waiver move ), you do have a minimum roster requirement that this transaction would have broken. The system enforced the rules you set.

 

[packer_junkie]

If you know he bid $54, I think he should get AP....

 

[jeaton6]

Roster requires a kicker. The move would have resulted in an illegal roster. Sucks for him but it's each owners job to know the rules. Not your job to fix problems caused resulting from owners not knowing them.

 

[Pipes]

Roster requires a kicker. The move would have resulted in an illegal roster. Sucks for him but it's each owners job to know the rules. Not your job to fix problems caused resulting from owners not knowing them.

This. He should have opened up a spot before making the AP claim. It's his responsibility to know the rules even if they are dumb. If the league rules state he must have a kicker on his roster at all times, which it sounds like it does then it's his mistake.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

12 team league, we do blind bidding against a cap for waivers.

Player A bid $50 on Peterson and won.

Player B bid $54, but RTS wouldn't process the move because he was going to drop his only kicker and it would have resulted in an 'illegal roster', which he obviously would have remedied between now and Sunday.

There is nothing in the league bylaws or on the website that references this issue-meaning he had no knowledge of the site not dropping his kicker, otherwise he would have dropped a WR5..

I found this blurb on the front page of the Bidding area: "If your roster is not full... no player will be dropped". Its kind of ambiguous because his roster IS full, although our Roster Composition on the Rules page requires a minimum of 1 kicker.

I am leaning towards using my common sense and not being a letter-of-the-law d-bag and awarding it to player b. However, I think that there is a reasonable argument that he should know the roster requirements and understand the drop rules..

Thoughts?

A smart commissioner would let the site settings/rules rule the day.

 

[chasyone]

Roster requires a kicker. The move would have

resulted in an illegal roster. Sucks for him but it's each owners job to know the rules. Not your job to fix problems caused resulting from owners not knowing them.

This. He should have opened up a spot before making the AP claim. It's his responsibility to know the rules even if they are dumb. If the

league rules state he must have a kicker on his roster at all times, which it sounds like it does then it's his mistake.

??

 

[RUSF18]

I'm confused about a couple things you wrote:

There is nothing in the league bylaws or on the website that references this issue-meaning he had no knowledge of the site not dropping his kicker, otherwise he would have dropped a WR5..

To me it sounds like there isn't anything in your rules requiring a kicker being kept on the roster at all times. Then:

However, I think that there is a reasonable argument that he should know the roster requirements

What roster requirements are you referring to?

 

[steelers1080]

In my league you can drop a kicker or D and in theory not even play one that week. As commisioner if I had absolute proof that he submitted the higher bid ahead of the deadline I'd award him the player. But with blind bidding I'm not sure how you could know.

 

[T J]

In my league you can drop a kicker or D and in theory not even play one that week. As commisioner if I had absolute proof that he submitted the higher bid ahead of the deadline I'd award him the player. But with blind bidding I'm not sure how you could know.

At least on MFL, you can, in fact, as commissioner see what people's bids were.

 

[Dizzy]

12 team league, we do blind bidding against a cap for waivers.

Player A bid $50 on Peterson and won.

Player B bid $54, but RTS wouldn't process the move because he was going to drop his only kicker and it would have resulted in an 'illegal roster', which he obviously would have remedied between now and Sunday.

There is nothing in the league bylaws or on the website that references this issue-meaning he had no knowledge of the site not dropping his kicker, otherwise he would have dropped a WR5..

I found this blurb on the front page of the Bidding area: "If your roster is not full... no player will be dropped". Its kind of ambiguous because his roster IS full, although our Roster Composition on the Rules page requires a minimum of 1 kicker.

I am leaning towards using my common sense and not being a letter-of-the-law d-bag and awarding it to player b. However, I think that there is a reasonable argument that he should know the roster requirements and understand the drop rules..

Thoughts?

A smart commissioner would let the site settings/rules rule the day.

Live and learn... make everyone aware of exactly what occurred, explain to them that unfortunately gray areas do raise their ugly heads from time to time, open it up for suggestions on how/what to fix for 2015, and then get it into your bylaws for next season.

We have a rule with similar wording regarding whacky plays (hook & trailer, fumblerooski, whatever) that basically says we are laying out rules and guidelines to the best of our ability; however, there may be scenarios out there that we simply have not accounted for. In such cases we all agree to abide by the ruling/scoring as it shakes out from our league management site (MFL.com in our case).

You can't think of everything... the owners will understand (eventually).

 

[Jack White]

In my league you can drop a kicker or D and in theory not even play one that week. As commisioner if I had absolute proof that he submitted the higher bid ahead of the deadline I'd award him the player. But with blind bidding I'm not sure how you could know.

At least on MFL, you can, in fact, as commissioner see what people's bids were.

On MFL, anyone can see all the bids:

Reports > Franchise > Previously Processed Waivers

 

[heckmanm]

In my league you can drop a kicker or D and in theory not even play one that week. As commisioner if I had absolute proof that he submitted the higher bid ahead of the deadline I'd award him the player. But with blind bidding I'm not sure how you could know.

At least on MFL, you can, in fact, as commissioner see what people's bids were.

On MFL, anyone can see all the bids:

Reports > Franchise > Previously Processed Waivers

I think the commissioner has to explicitly grant access to that report, but it seems you either have access to see this for everyone or for noone (including your own team). So after BB waivers are processed, I can't even go back and see what *I* bid, because this report is turned off in our league.

 

[Jack White]

In my league you can drop a kicker or D and in theory not even play one that week. As commisioner if I had absolute proof that he submitted the higher bid ahead of the deadline I'd award him the player. But with blind bidding I'm not sure how you could know.

At least on MFL, you can, in fact, as commissioner see what people's bids were.

On MFL, anyone can see all the bids:

Reports > Franchise > Previously Processed Waivers

I think the commissioner has to explicitly grant access to that report, but it seems you either have access to see this for everyone or for noone (including your own team). So after BB waivers are processed, I can't even go back and see what *I* bid, because this report is turned off in our league.

OK, so it's a league setting.

It's always been turned on in my league.

I like that I can see it. One, I don't think most guys even look at at it. And two, I can gain some competitive intel on who guys are bidding on.

Then again, that's probably why other leagues have it turned off.

 

[unckeyherb]

On mfl at least it would have notified him that it would make his lineup illegal. Either way he should know the rules of the league. How do you know he bid $54 for sure?

As commish, I have access to that info. He DID bid more than anyone else.

 

[unckeyherb]

I'm confused about a couple things you wrote:

There is nothing in the league bylaws or on the website that references this issue-meaning he had no knowledge of the site not dropping his kicker, otherwise he would have dropped a WR5..

To me it sounds like there isn't anything in your rules requiring a kicker being kept on the roster at all times. Then:

However, I think that there is a reasonable argument that he should know the roster requirements

What roster requirements are you referring to?

There is nothing specifically referencing this situation. In the Roster Composition requirements there is a minimum of 1 kicker. Meaning you MUST have at least 1 kicker on your roster at all times.

 

[Jack White]

On mfl at least it would have notified him that it would make his lineup illegal. Either way he should know the rules of the league. How do you know he bid $54 for sure?

As commish, I have access to that info. He DID bid more than anyone else.

Isn't it a conflict of interest for a commissioner who is also an owner to have access to that info when everyone else does not?

 

[unckeyherb]

his argument is that RT won't allow a trade to be accepted if it violates the roster requirements, so it shouldn't have allowed him to set this WW move.

 

[unckeyherb]

On mfl at least it would have notified him that it would make his lineup illegal. Either way he should know the rules of the league. How do you know he bid $54 for sure?

As commish, I have access to that info. He DID bid more than anyone else.

Isn't it a conflict of interest for a commissioner who is also an owner to have access to that info when everyone else does not?

after the fact. Bids are hidden from me the same as trade offers.

 

[Road Warriors]

his argument is that RT won't allow a trade to be accepted if it violates the roster requirements, so it shouldn't have allowed him to set this WW move.

Does RT allow a trade offer to be made that violates the roster requirements? That would be more analogous to the waiver claim.

Trade offer = waiver request / Blind bid

Trade accept = waiver processed / Blind bid win

Roster rules enforced when the transaction is executed, not requested.

 

[meatwad1]

Seeing that he is not playing this week, I would maybe either let those two guys resubmit bids to you or throw him back into the pot next week.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

In my league you can drop a kicker or D and in theory not even play one that week. As commisioner if I had absolute proof that he submitted the higher bid ahead of the deadline I'd award him the player. But with blind bidding I'm not sure how you could know.

At least on MFL, you can, in fact, as commissioner see what people's bids were.

On MFL, anyone can see all the bids:

Reports > Franchise > Previously Processed Waivers

I think the commissioner has to explicitly grant access to that report, but it seems you either have access to see this for everyone or for noone (including your own team). So after BB waivers are processed, I can't even go back and see what *I* bid, because this report is turned off in our league.

same for me.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm confused about a couple things you wrote:

There is nothing in the league bylaws or on the website that references this issue-meaning he had no knowledge of the site not dropping his kicker, otherwise he would have dropped a WR5..

To me it sounds like there isn't anything in your rules requiring a kicker being kept on the roster at all times. Then:

However, I think that there is a reasonable argument that he should know the roster requirements

What roster requirements are you referring to?

There is nothing specifically referencing this situation. In the Roster Composition requirements there is a minimum of 1 kicker. Meaning you MUST have at least 1 kicker on your roster at all times.

So then that IS the rule - there shouldn't be any issue whatsoever.

The guy who bid $54 screwed up. It's his mistake and he should live with it.

 

[Jack White]

On mfl at least it would have notified him that it would make his lineup illegal. Either way he should know the rules of the league. How do you know he bid $54 for sure?

As commish, I have access to that info. He DID bid more than anyone else.

Isn't it a conflict of interest for a commissioner who is also an owner to have access to that info when everyone else does not?

after the fact. Bids are hidden from me the same as trade offers.

I'm talking about after the fact.

It still potentially gives you information that you could use to your advantage in future weeks.

It should be everyone can see, or no one can, including the commissioner.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

his argument is that RT won't allow a trade to be accepted if it violates the roster requirements, so it shouldn't have allowed him to set this WW move.

his argument is terrible. for one thing he's admitting to knowing about the roster requirements. tell him to accept the responsibility for his mistake like a man.

 

[unckeyherb]

On mfl at least it would have notified him that it would make his lineup illegal. Either way he should know the rules of the league. How do you know he bid $54 for sure?

As commish, I have access to that info. He DID bid more than anyone else.

Isn't it a conflict of interest for a commissioner who is also an owner to have access to that info when everyone else does not?

after the fact. Bids are hidden from me the same as trade offers.

I'm talking about after the fact.

It still potentially gives you information that you could use to your advantage in future weeks.

It should be everyone can see, or no one can, including the commissioner.

everyone including the commissioner can see only the failed bids for each player. It doesn't say who bid what, just the losing amounts. The guy that bid $54 is the only guy in the league that has that much.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I'm confused about a couple things you wrote:

There is nothing in the league bylaws or on the website that references this issue-meaning he had no knowledge of the site not dropping his kicker, otherwise he would have dropped a WR5..

To me it sounds like there isn't anything in your rules requiring a kicker being kept on the roster at all times. Then:

However, I think that there is a reasonable argument that he should know the roster requirements

What roster requirements are you referring to?

There is nothing specifically referencing this situation. In the Roster Composition requirements there is a minimum of 1 kicker. Meaning you MUST have at least 1 kicker on your roster at all times.

The rule is obviously stated. It is annoying that it doesn't cause an error, but he also has to live with the fact that he did not know the rules.

 

[AngryPatriot]

Agreed... too bad. If roster requirements are set you have to plan for it and cut someone. Live and learn, the 50 gets him.

 

[Joe Summer]

The question you should be asking is: how would you have handled the situation if the internet didn't exist? Do your league rules forbid teams from having a "temporarily illegal roster"? Or is this just an issue with the website software?

 

[RUSF18]

I'm confused about a couple things you wrote:

There is nothing in the league bylaws or on the website that references this issue-meaning he had no knowledge of the site not dropping his kicker, otherwise he would have dropped a WR5..

To me it sounds like there isn't anything in your rules requiring a kicker being kept on the roster at all times. Then:

However, I think that there is a reasonable argument that he should know the roster requirements

What roster requirements are you referring to?

There is nothing specifically referencing this situation. In the Roster Composition requirements there is a minimum of 1 kicker. Meaning you MUST have at least 1 kicker on your roster at all times.

So then that IS the rule - there shouldn't be any issue whatsoever.

The guy who bid $54 screwed up. It's his mistake and he should live with it.

Agree. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[unckeyherb]

The question you should be asking is: how would you have handled the situation if the internet didn't exist? Do your league rules forbid teams from having a "temporarily illegal roster"? Or is this just an issue with the website software?

thats kind of my issue. I'm not one for allowing ignorance of a rule to be an excuse. But the spirit of the ww move was that he wanted to bid all his remaining money on Peterson and that would have beaten everyone else. I think that while the site is set up that its a stupid rule. I never intercede on trades as its not my role as commish. 99% of the time I don't intercede on these kind of issues because the rules are the rules and its not my role as commish. This situation though seems like using the rules are rules mentality goes against the spirit of blind bidding. Obviously had he known it was an issue, he wouldn't have said 'screw it I don't need Peterson that bad'. He'd have dropped his never going to be starting RB5.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I am leaning towards using my common sense and not being a letter-of-the-law d-bag and awarding it to player b. However, I think that there is a reasonable argument that he should know the roster requirements and understand the drop rules..

Thoughts?

Would you have known or expected that the site wouldn't allow a transaction to process if it meant he would (temporarily) have an "illegal roster"? It sounds like the answer is no - and if that's the case, how can you hold a fellow owner to a higher standard?

I'm generally of the opinion that owners shouldn't be "punished" for league management software doing things in unexpected ways. Even if the owner did his best to understand how the site worked, by your own admission it was ambiguous. "Roster requirements" and "drop rules" are things you agree on as a league, not things that should be imposed on you by the crappy fantasy football software that hosts your league.

As you said, had he understood that the site would reject his transaction (even though it accepted the request), he wouldn't have abandoned the idea of picking up Peterson, he'd have just dropped his WR5 or whatever. Let common sense rule the day.

The question you should be asking is: how would you have handled the situation if the internet didn't exist? Do your league rules forbid teams from having a "temporarily illegal roster"? Or is this just an issue with the website software?

Whenever one of these issues comes up that involves the league website, I always ask myself this question. How would this have been resolved 25 years ago? Why should it be different today?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I am leaning towards using my common sense and not being a letter-of-the-law d-bag and awarding it to player b. However, I think that there is a reasonable argument that he should know the roster requirements and understand the drop rules..

Thoughts?

Would you have known or expected that the site wouldn't allow a transaction to process if it meant he would (temporarily) have an "illegal roster"? It sounds like the answer is no - and if that's the case, how can you hold a fellow owner to a higher standard?

I'm generally of the opinion that owners shouldn't be "punished" for league management software doing things in unexpected ways. Even if the owner did his best to understand how the site worked, by your own admission it was ambiguous. "Roster requirements" and "drop rules" are things you agree on as a league, not things that should be imposed on you by the crappy fantasy football software that hosts your league.

As you said, had he understood that the site would reject his transaction (even though it accepted the request), he wouldn't have abandoned the idea of picking up Peterson, he'd have just dropped his WR5 or whatever. Let common sense rule the day.

The question you should be asking is: how would you have handled the situation if the internet didn't exist? Do your league rules forbid teams from having a "temporarily illegal roster"? Or is this just an issue with the website software?

Whenever one of these issues comes up that involves the league website, I always ask myself this question. How would this have been resolved 25 years ago? Why should it be different today?

He says in this post that there are roster composition requirements and they require holding a kicker: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=720032&p=17440383

So if the internet didn't exist, he would not have to comply with the roster composition requirements?

 

[unckeyherb]

yeah, I mean this issue wouldn't be an issue way back when.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

He says in this post that there are roster composition requirements and they require holding a kicker: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=720032&p=17440383

So if the internet didn't exist, he would not have to comply with the roster composition requirements?

It doesn't sound like "You must have a legal roster at all times during the week" is a league rule that they implemented, it sounds like a restriction imposed on the league by the software. It also sounds like the wording on the site may have been ambiguous - which is supported by the first response in this thread:

The RTS waiver system is very user unfriendly and confusing, half the people in our league don't even bid on players because they can't figure out how to use it.

as well as my own experience with RTSports generally being a ####ty league management site.

I don't know exactly how their league is set up, what the rules say, what the expectations are, etc. All I'm saying is that if the commissioner would have expected the transaction to go through as requested, he shouldn't hold an owner to some higher standard because the software didn't work the way he'd expect it to. If the commissioner would have approved the transaction 25 years ago, why wouldn't it be approved today?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

He says in this post that there are roster composition requirements and they require holding a kicker: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=720032&p=17440383

So if the internet didn't exist, he would not have to comply with the roster composition requirements?

It doesn't sound like "You must have a legal roster at all times during the week" is a league rule that they implemented, it sounds like a restriction imposed on the league by the software. It also sounds like the wording on the site may have been ambiguous - which is supported by the first response in this thread:

from the commissioner's own words:

In the Roster Composition requirements there is a minimum of 1 kicker. Meaning you MUST have at least 1 kicker on your roster at all times.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

He says in this post that there are roster composition requirements and they require holding a kicker: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=720032&p=17440383

So if the internet didn't exist, he would not have to comply with the roster composition requirements?

It doesn't sound like "You must have a legal roster at all times during the week" is a league rule that they implemented, it sounds like a restriction imposed on the league by the software. It also sounds like the wording on the site may have been ambiguous - which is supported by the first response in this thread:

from the commissioner's own words:

In the Roster Composition requirements there is a minimum of 1 kicker. Meaning you MUST have at least 1 kicker on your roster at all times.

But it sounds like he (the commissioner) didn't even really understand this until after the fact, when he started investigating why the transaction didn't process. He knows now that you have to have a kicker at all times, but it's unclear whether he knew that yesterday. Again, just going off of my own brief experience with RTSports a few years ago, I'm inclined to believe the site explained the process poorly and generally didn't work correctly. And I'm not a fan of letting software limitations override the spirit of the league rules.

Without knowing more about the actual rules, how the site is set up, the league culture, etc. it's impossible to give any kind of definitive advice one way or the other. I could support either course of action if I knew more about it. If the software did let the transaction go through last night, would anyone in the league have batted an eye?

 

[socrates]

Ignorance of the rules should not be a defense here. I think it was a legitimate mistake by Player B, but if the rules were published and available, then Player A should prevail. (Do your rules provide for how to deal with such a controversy?) It is an unfortunate situation, no doubt.

 

[unckeyherb]

The rules are listed and like I said, the front page of the WW selection page has a blurb about it. There is no remedy to the situation. I offered up the following to them: I pick a number from 1-1000, whoever is closest wins or I put AD on waivers until next year.

 

[RUSF18]

The rules are listed and like I said, the front page of the WW selection page has a blurb about it. There is no remedy to the situation. I offered up the following to them: I pick a number from 1-1000, whoever is closest wins or I put AD on waivers until next year.

I'm not sure why you're going this route. I was fully on board with going with "intent" here until you said there is a rule that you need a kicker on your roster at all times. Once he submitted a bid with the kicker being the guy he dropped, it was invalid.

If your rules only stated that you need a kicker in your starting lineup once the games kickoff (but your league site acted differently), I could understand taking this approach, because that leaves open the possibility of him picking up another kicker in between. And that seems like a much better rule. But that's not your rule.

 

[spodog]

you are making a bad situation worse. Either you have a bidding system, with player awarded to highest bidder or you don't. This 1 to 1000 magician nonsense will likely leave all parties unhappy.

Issue 1- who makes the rules, the comissioner or some arbitrary software you use to manage the league?

You state that "RTS doesn't have a rule for this". RTS isn't the commish. It is the commish's job to ensure rules are in place and enforced correctly. A piece of software can't manage your league. If your rule is high bidder takes the player - then award the player to the $54 guy.

Issue 2 - the 'illelgal lineup' baloney

As you point out, the owner is going to rectify his lack of kicker eventually anyway. Why is it your job (or RTS software's job) to govern when an owner can drop their kicker or drop any player for that matter. Leave that decision to the discretion of the owner. Change your settings on the illegal lineup deal. League's that have a maximum or minimum number of players required at any given roster position are borderline communist. The NFL doesn't restrict how many players a team can roster at a given position, why should you?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

The rules are listed and like I said, the front page of the WW selection page has a blurb about it. There is no remedy to the situation. I offered up the following to them: I pick a number from 1-1000, whoever is closest wins or I put AD on waivers until next year.

I'm not sure why you're going this route. I was fully on board with going with "intent" here until you said there is a rule that you need a kicker on your roster at all times. Once he submitted a bid with the kicker being the guy he dropped, it was invalid.

If your rules only stated that you need a kicker in your starting lineup once the games kickoff (but your league site acted differently), I could understand taking this approach, because that leaves open the possibility of him picking up another kicker in between. And that seems like a much better rule. But that's not your rule.

I agree with this.

If I had read the roster requirements and therefore realized that I could not drop a kicker in order to pick up a player and therefore did not put in a bid on the player, I would not be happy that someone else was able to circumvent the posted roster requirements.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Issue 2 - the 'illelgal lineup' baloney

As you point out, the owner is going to rectify his lack of kicker eventually anyway. Why is it your job (or RTS software's job) to govern when an owner can drop their kicker or drop any player for that matter. Leave that decision to the discretion of the owner. Change your settings on the illegal lineup deal. League's that have a maximum or minimum number of players required at any given roster position are borderline communist. The NFL doesn't restrict how many players a team can roster at a given position, why should you?

I agree with this position, but I do not agree that the rule should be changed midseason.

 

[unckeyherb]

Sorry sarcasm doesn't read well. I'm leaving the WW award as it is and adjusting the roster requirements so this doesn't happen next year..

 

[AngryPatriot]

Yeah- I wouldn't change it or do some crazy lottery. The way it went down is how it was supposed to happen, period. Change it next year.

The rules are listed and like I said, the front page of the WW selection page has a blurb about it. There is no remedy to the situation. I offered up the following to them: I pick a number from 1-1000, whoever is closest wins or I put AD on waivers until next year.

Uhhh, no. It already went down according to the rules as it is. Change it next year- or leave it, is the way to go.

 

[rickyg]

No matter how convoluted and in user friendly the waiver system is on rt sports, as long as I

The rules apply to every team than he should have understood the rules on waivers and illegal rosters. Lesson learned and I bet he will never do that again. Don't change it.

 

[Hoss Style]

Seems to me that a good commish makes the call instead of hiding behind a website rule that is poorly worded.

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what is the exact wording of the rule, anyway? If it's ambiguous, then make the call. For example, if the website rule says that a kicker must be rostered, yet doesn't say when (as in every day of the season, or just by game time), then apply the rule as you think it should be with regards to how you run your league. If it doesn't specifically say "continually throughout the season" or "by game time", then I would think you'd assume it meant by game time. It would be idiotic to have to keep a player on your roster every day of the season, and yet when you bid on another player/drop your kicker, there is no mention of the violation.

Remember that this rule is going to nullify another prominent, well known rule (highest bidder wins the player), so it's not as cut and dry as many say it is.

Like many said above - you and your owners run your league. Make the call, and as long as it is consistent with all rulings earlier in the season (i.e. no owners have been affected by it previously) then stick to it.

I just don't think a main rule that is the cornerstone of your WW should be overturned by an insignificant, poorly defined rule.

 

[Topes]

Has the system ever enforced the rule before? My guess is yes.

I don't think you have an issue here.

It was an illegal waiver claim. The owner made a mistake.

If you start blah blah blah slippery slope. You will regret it.

Rule changes and interpretations made retroactively in the name of fairnes end up setting some of the worst and most contentious precedents in fantasy. They can unravel or disfigure a league mightily quick.